dimreepr

My intelligence/comprehension is relatively limited, ‘overtone’, especially when it comes to semantics, so please can you clarify your position, do you advocate gun control or the current status quo?

It seems that, if you explain what guns actually do, fewer people wish to buy them.

https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpf1/v/t43.1792-2/11052628_904950219556802_2076527557_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjE1MDAsInJsYSI6MzY5NH0%3D&rl=1500&vabr=951&oh=5af530948b8dfc750dd296db770678ab&oe=55E1A3CF

The problem is people like ‘waitforufo’ considers they’re immune to danger, much like a child considers they’re immortal.

And much like a spoilt child they throw a tantrum whenever someone suggests they’re wrong.

I have explained how it's wrong, you need to explain how it's right and not just a reiteration of your previous post's.

If you think that was a lecture then I give up, my pessimism was well founded and your so called theory is, as I've said, wrong.

45 Year depression

Solved with the flick of a switch

I now have inner peace. “Bullshit” I hear you cry that’s just mystical mumbo jumbo. So you’re a Buddhist now? Nope. Buddhism is only relevant if you’re from the culture it was intended to teach. No I’m just a bloke who has had his knowledge, of the world and how it relates him, switch flick to understanding. I had five similar switches to flick for this to happen;

1. The illusion of control. Ironically Kung fu panda helped me flick this switch cheers Buddha

2. The illusion of understanding. This forum’s responsible for me flicking this switch big up thanks guys.

3. Living in the moment. Again Kung fu panda, partly, and “inow” in questioning his name thanks mate.

4. Expectations. This was the trickiest for me and still is. The flick of this switch needs constant re-flicking. I’ve got my dog tatty and my friend charly. The mantra I use, when someone has annoyed me because of my expectation, to re-flick this one is “that’s just me in a different skin so why not smile at me”.

5 What do I actually need? I have Drink and drugs to thank for flipping this switch. Fundamentally what do I actually need to live at any given moment and the answer is almost certainly nothing. Well you say we need food, water and shelter to live. Only if that moment was the threshold of a starving man dying he needs food. Are you starving at this moment? the same for a thirsty man. Are you thirsty? Or if your captain Oates you would be glad of a nice fire, a tent and some food in the cupboard. Most of us can claim none of these. If you’re in a bad moment and can’t change it? Then your actual need is to simply wait for the next moment come alone that will hopefully change your moment to a good one. If you’re in a good moment then why change anything?

It's been almost 5 years since I posted this but what I finally came to understand was the futility of chasing happiness because all you really need is to be content with who we are and what we have

I’ve tried several times to discuss why you’re barking up the wrong tree and every time you refuse and simply restate this nonsense, how for instance is optimism a rewarding experience?

I can be optimistic that you will finally understand my posts whilst at the same time be pessimistic that you ever will but it gives me no pleasure or pain.

All I can say with any degree of confidence is you’re wrong.

Greed is a powerful motivator.

The WHO’s recommended daily sugar intake should be no more than 10% (ideally less than 5%) of added sugar.

For a 2.000 calorie diet, 5% equals 25 grams, so a 100 gram serving of whatever that contains 17% sugar and is less than 20% of said diet should be ringing a few alarm bells.

http://www.sugarscience.org/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.VdxA_flVhBc

The AHA recommends 6 – 9 teaspoons of sugar per day...

Not to mention the heat of the engine.

A little off topic but I think this new type of thermionic generator could be a more efficient way to go.

 

 

No you are right..... there was too much, to read it all, vis a vis available time.

But that shouldn't detract from the argument that I presented.... primarily because that argument was based around common knowledge.

 

Clearly there are complex issues at stake here.

However, I believe that the 'angle' that I took was valid to the thread, and the logic I used was solid.

It’s naive and a little arrogant to think your simplistic observation can make a valid contribution to a thread nearing its third page by reading the thread title.

I to have noticed a cultural trend towards less sugar (the white stuff one spoons) in hot beverages but that doesn’t equate to our intake of sugar being reduced, since sugar has many different names and many different hiding places.

1/ yes

2/yes

3/ From this picture it looks like the river has a weir.

A little off topic but I think this new type of thermionic generator could be a more efficient way to go.

The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 3.78 cm/year, surely that’s to close to be a coincidence.

 

Oh Cmon!..........

I'm not lodging this theory with 'Nature'.

 

Are you suggesting that people have gradually migrated from a 'one spoon policy' to: supersaturated 'crystals spinning' (action of the spoon)?

 

Let's take that as the range.

Zero sugar....... to crystals spinning (a la Egypt/Sudan).

 

How many people do you know (outside of the territory types mentioned above), that have started using a spoon of sugar, and (through implication of addiction) have moved to 'crystals spinning'?

My guess is none.

 

While that statement is entirely unscientific vis a vis standard protocols.......... we have all lived life, and drunk beverages with at least hundreds of people.

 

So let's make it more scientific..... and eliminate all those people who we have met, that have grown up with the 'normality of spinning sugar crystals'.

 

We are left with a pretty average bunch, because I can think of two instances of people who took 3 spoons of sugar ...... and even then.... why did they stay at only 3?

Depending upon cup size obv, but you could go for another 3 spoons........ try it

 

But how many people do you know, have gone from one spoon, to two spoons to three spoons....... to six or seven spoons of sugar?..... because that is the question.

 

Even if you know one person..... it means nothing (sample extremes are always eliminated in a good study eh?)

 

If most of the people you have met in your life, had progressively increased their 'direct' sugar dosage, then we'd all assume that the cause may be due to it's addictive qualities.

 

But no......... I know you can't tell me different......... and nobody is going to say different.

 

I think a repositioning is necessary.... and a QED should be stated.... only more text is required.

.... because you could say that the 'addictive need' is satisfied by increasing the sugar intake, through other means.

 

This avenue will always offer an avenue to challenge QED...... let's just accept that.

 

However.... if we include cakes etc. there are too many variables....... fats, a feeling of being full, flavours. etc.

Challenge away..... but these sugar sources create too much noise.

 

While less so.... we have to be careful of fizzy drinks.

So many are laced with synthesised sweeteners....... the very fact that these became successful indicate that the 'sugar addiction premise' is a non-starter (different molecules completely).

 

Therefore, while fizzy drinks tend to confirm the statement: "sugar is not addictive"........ we can focus on the one area, where sugar consumption is within our control, and it is relevant to a large proportion of of the population of the western industrialised nations.

 

That area is tea & coffee.... and it is entirely acceptable to put sugar in either drink.

 

Given that sugar is addictive, and is cheap, and control of consumption is in our hands (ie. have as much as you want, because there is no cost implication)........ if it is truly addictive, then everybody who takes sugar in their drinks, would have gradually increased their sugar dose.

 

In fact, this is not the case.

So yes..... I think I can say:

 

Sugar is not addictive.......... QED

 

PS. I don't know about you, but in the past two decades, I've noticed that less and less people take two spoons of sugar....... whereas when I was younger, it was fairly normal.

I didn't want to introduce this into the argument...... but if others have found that few people now take two spoons......it's another nail, in the already screwed down coffin lid of sugar addiction.

 

However, I await 'fair challenge' with an open mind.

 

Just out of curiosity have you read this thread rather than just the title?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4361030/

“There is more to food addiction than food restriction and bingeing. The type of nutrient that the animal ingests is also important. Our studies of food addiction have largely focused on sugar (sucrose or glucose). The positive results may relate to sugar as a special nutrient. It has its own receptor system in the tongue,^51,52the intestines,^53,54 the liver,⁵⁵ pancreas,⁵⁵ and brain.⁵⁶ Glucoreceptors provide life-saving information to the ingestive behavior system and its associated learning, emotion, and motivational systems. In all probability, sugar addiction in rats is engendered by excessive, repeated activation of this pervasive sugar sensory system.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589

This review summarizes evidence of sugar dependence in an animal model. Four components of addiction are analyzed. “Bingeing,” “withdrawal,” “craving” and “cross-sensitization” are each given operational definitions and demonstrated behaviorally with sugar bingeing as the reinforcer. These behaviors are then related to neurochemical changes in the brain that also occur with addictive drugs.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/07/sugar-health-research

“When you look at animal studies comparing sugar to cocaine,” DiNicolantonio told Here & Now’s Lisa Mullins, “even when you get the rats hooked on IV cocaine, once you

introduce sugar, almost all of them switch to the sugar.”

But in the spirit of fair play here’s one that backs up your view

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561409002398

There is a line of ice cream made by Edy's carried in the local supermarket.

The label states "No Sugar Added" and "1/3 fewer calories than regular ice cream", and 1/2 the fat of regular ice cream. The label also reveals that there are 110 calories per serving (1/2) cup,as well as 17g of carbohydrates, which the label states is 6% of the recommended daily value based on a 2000 calorie diet. Of those 17g of carbohydrate 3g is sugar and 7g sugar alcohol.

The label of this line of products seems to be rather informative.

Sorry Bill that was an American reference I apologise for not making that clear.

 

Understood. But let me continue on here with explaining my theory because I am still trying to figure this whole theory of mine out.

That’s twice now, you say you understand and then immediately demonstrate you don’t.

You also seem to misunderstand the purpose of a discussion or the meaning of a theory, please read my signature.

Is that a QED?

Probably not...... but it's pretty close.

Evidence would help support that.

Given that tolerance is a basic tenant of almost all religions, it’s strange to see that the more fervently they adhere to religion the less tolerant they become.

To live an eternal blissful life of no more suffering, depression, mortality, and anhedonia.

Did you really mean to include mortality?

Never the less you’ve set yourself an impossible target.

Sad things happen (like the death of a loved one) and you will suffer the loss even if you recover quickly; not to mention the suffering from accidents or illness.

You should read the link I gave on anhedonia, which is defined as “the inability to experience pleasure from activities usually found to be enjoyable” and is often the result of a mental disorder so your theory would need to treat such disorders as schizophrenia without antipsychotic medication.

 

 

Well, let me explain more things on my theory here. There are more things to talk about it here:

 

if a sociopath felt nothing but hate and detest towards his/her family and he/she told his/herself that his/her family still has good value and worth to him/her anyway and that they bring him/her good meaning in his/her life anyway, then they would not bring this sociopath any good meaning. They would be of no good value and worth to this sociopath.

We have thoughts. But then we have counterthoughts. This sociopath would be having a bad thought which would act as a counterthought to his/her good one and would make that good thought nothing good at all. So he/she would instead be having nothing but that bad thought since his/her brain is getting the displeasure signal and not the pleasure signal.

There is the difference between having a thought and having a perception. If we have a good thought and that sends the pleasure signal to our brains, then this would mean that we are actually perceiving that said thing or person to be of good value and worth to us. But if that thought did not send the pleasure signal, then we would not be perceiving any good value and worth towards that said thing or person at all. We would instead be having a neutral or bad counterthought to that good one.

Just thoughts alone do not bring our lives any good or bad meaning. Only when we perceive something to be of good value and worth to us or of bad value and bad worth to us would that said thing or person be of good or bad value/worth to us. So with that example with the sociopath, he/she would be perceiving no good meaning whatsoever towards his/her family. He/she would instead be perceiving nothing but bad meaning towards his/her family.

Just knowing and thinking things does not give our lives any good or bad meaning. We have to actually perceive it as good or bad to give our lives good or bad meaning. But like I said before, our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions are what give us the actual perception of good and bad meaning in our lives. It is a scientific (feeling/emotional) perception of good and bad meaning in our lives and is not any moral or any other version of good and bad meaning.

Therefore, our thoughts alone do not perceive good or bad meaning at all. They instead only perceive different stimuli. They perceive stimuli as either promoting survival, hindering/threatening survival, or neither promoting nor hindering/threatening survival. All stimuli that are perceived as promoting survival always send the pleasure signal, stimuli that are perceived as hindering/threatening survival always send the displeasure signal, and all stimuli that are perceived as neither hindering nor threatening survival always send neither a pleasure nor a displeasure signal.

But it is only when we get the pleasure signal that we then experience the pleasant emotion known as "wanting." Wanting is the actual scientific perception of good meaning towards that stimulus that was perceived as survival promoting. The animal (in this case, a human being) needs this experience of wanting in order to give him/her the incentive to pursue that said object of goal. It is the only incentive he/she has to give his/her life good meaning. Once he/she obtains that object of goal, then another pleasure signal would be sent to give him/her the pleasant emotion known as "liking." Liking is also the only thing that gives him/her the incentive (perception of good meaning).

If a displeausre signal gets sent to his/her brain, then that is the only thing that gives him/her the scientific perception of bad meaning towards that stimulus that was perceived as hindering or threatening his/her survival. If we had no pleasant or unpleasant feelings/emotions, then we cannot perceive any good or bad meaning whatsoever in our lives. We would only be fooling our brains into thinking we can still live good lives that have good meaning if we were to struggle with depression and/or anhedonia which turns off the experience of our pleasant emotions (our reward system).

Just as how a blind and deaf person cannot give his/herself sight and hearing through his/her thoughts alone, we cannot give our lives any good or bad meaning either through our thoughts alone without our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions.

 

This is just nonsense.

 

So by me wanting to know the answer, you are saying that I am not content with my life and that I need to be accepting and content. But this is a science forum. This is not a therapy forum where we try and calm people down or anything like that. Science is something important here and is what we obviously talk about here.

Not at all, what I’m saying is, it’s your choice; sometimes science can’t provide the answer, but so what.

 

I understand that. But this is about my theory at hand we are talking about. I need to know the answer to my theory if it is true or false and I need someone to explain to me how it is false if it really is false. I am on the quest for truth here and wish to know the answer to my theory.

If you really understood then the underscored is answered.

 

Note to Reader: The previous theory I have written was way too long and incoherent. Therefore, this is the final version of my theory that is as brief as possible and gets my point across clearly.

The term "rewarding experience" has been defined through science as only being our reward system (pleasant emotions) and not our thoughts alone since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. It is always a rewarding experience for us to have good meaning in our lives. For example, if you perceive good meaning towards your family and living for them to help them out, then that is always a rewarding experience for you. You are perceiving a rewarding experience towards the helping of your family and towards living for them.

Therefore, it would have to be our pleasant emotions that can be the only things that can give good meaning to our lives. To say that something can have good value and worth to you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you would be no different than saying that something can be a rewarding experience for you even though it is not a rewarding experience for you. Therefore, that would be a false (contradictory) statement.

I am now going to present to you that contradictory statement here again. So here it is:

"This is not a rewarding experience for me. But it still has good value and worth to me anyway."

The bolded statement there is either a pessimistic statement or neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic statement. Pessimism is always a disrewarding experience for us as human beings and having neither a pessimistic nor an optimistic experience is always neither a rewarding nor a disrewarding experience for us as human beings. But...

"This is not a rewarding experience for me. But it still has good value and worth to me anyway."

Now to have good meaning in our lives is always an optimistic statement. Optimism is always a rewarding experience for us as human beings. Therefore, this is the reason why it can only be our rewarding experiences (pleasant emotions) that can make things, people, our family, this life/universe, and our goals/dreams of good value and worth to us.

So our pleasant emotions which are the result of the functioning of our reward system would have to be the scientific version of good and our unpleasant feelings/emotions (the opposite) would have to be the scientific version of bad. Having neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings/emotions would only render you and your life having neutral (neither good or bad) value and worth.

So good and bad are scientific terms like sight, hearing, and smell. Our pleasant feelings/emotions are a sense of good meaning in our lives and our unpleasant feelings/emotions are a sense of bad meaning in our lives. Just as how a blind and deaf person cannot give his/herself sight or hearing through his/her thoughts alone, we cannot give our lives any good or bad meaning either without our pleasant/unpleasant feelings/emotions.

So if you struggle with depression and/or anhedonia (absence of pleasant emotions) which turns off your reward system, you cannot have any good meaning in your life from your friends, family, or your goals and dreams.

In conclusion, our pleasant and unpleasant feelings/emotions are what allow us to perceive a scientific version of good and bad meaning in our lives. It is not a moral version or any other version of good or bad meaning. It is instead a feeling/emotional version of good and bad and not any moral or any other version of good and bad.

Therefore, with all of this being said, the moral (personal value judgment) version of good and bad is fake and does not make us or our lives good or bad. There is instead a scientific version of good and bad that humanity and science is currently unaware of and I think I might have discovered it.

I myself struggle with depression and anhedonia (absence of all my pleasant emotions). This personal experience has led me to this theory. My intuition has led me to this theory. It could encourage scientists like never before to find cures knowing that our pleasant feelings/emotions are all that we have in our lives to make us good people and our lives good. Science could create an eternal blissful life in the future and resurrect people such as me who have missed out on life so we can live this eternal blissful life.

 

A blissful life depends on many things, Matt, such as:

Not fearing/worrying about a future we can’t possibly know.

Not dwelling on a past we can’t possibly change.

Not jealously striving for that which we don’t need.

Not trying to control others, when we can only request their cooperation.

Not expecting but accepting.

Not demanding our knowledge is paramount.

And knowing the difference between contentment and happiness.

I'm sure he can explain it then.

 

In any regard, Matt is clearly suffering from mental distress and open forums are no place to hash out these issues. We are none of us clinicians and even were we it would be improper for us to engage in offering advice here.

 

Matt, if you are seeing a professional then share your concerns you have expressed here with them. If you are not seeing a professional then consider doing so.

Why, since strange has essentially answered your question?

But to add, our choices not only include what we do about depression but also who we choose to blame for it; if we blame others then the expectation is, the cure lays outside of us and with others.

In my experience and that of my friends (who say I’ve helped), acknowledging the ‘blame’ is within is a step on the path to recovery.

Disjointed as Matt's opening post is, your assertion that people choose to be depressed is unsupported. What evidence do you have for your assertion other than anecdotal experience? Moreover, can you support the idea that depressed folks blame others for their condition?

 

Depression (mood) @ Wiki

 

I didn’t assert people choose to be depressed, my assertion, is that in a depressed state we have the choice and in this particular case the choice seems to be blaming others.

 

I find that quote to be a mocking insult to me.

So you blame the quote?

Yet another excuse: try taking the path less trodden and blame yourself; because that is the reason for your apathy.